The roots of 4e exposed?

[ccs]

PERHAPS, if WoTC had let the TTRPG crowd in on the little "online play" secret, INSTEAD OF PATRONIZING US, AND TREATING US LIKE A BUNCH OF
MINDLESS THREE-YEAR-OLDS, AND TRYING TO LEAD US AROUND, BY THE NOSE, they would have done better with their highly touted, long awaited
release, of the new version of the game.

I doubt it. The vast majority who passed/bailed on 4e did so because it mechanically just wasn't a version of the game they wanted to play.
What WoTCs customers wanted was to spend $ on an improved 3x. Or in some cases an improved AD&D. What we GOT was a 3/4 baked board game designed to be played on a computer that was niether.

 

[Ted Serious]

I would be hestitant to use this language. You can't be truer than what happened, and 4e did evolve out of the late 3e materials. But right now we are seeing multitude of reactions to the Pathfinder 2 preview materials akin to "that looks like 4e," and "that looks like 5e," with other fans noting "that was already in late PF1 so this still looks like PF." So it does seem that 3.X d20 system remains the backbone for Pathfinder, 4e, and 5e.

Truer to the direction established by 3.0 and 3.5. 4e was a radical change. The article did make sense though. That established direction would not have brought in the desired subscription revenue in the short term.

It might have by now that the technology has arrived be doing better than 5e is. No way to know. The editions since 3.5 seem to be performing based on marketing and trends, not content.

 

[Ancalagon]

The editions since 3.5 seem to be performing based on marketing and trends, not content.

Now trends and marketing counts for a lot yes... but is may just be possible that people who play 5e *genuinely* like it you know...

 

[Aldarc]

Truer to the direction established by 3.0 and 3.5. 4e was a radical change. The article did make sense though. That established direction would not have brought in the desired subscription revenue in the short term.

It might have by now that the technology has arrived be doing better than 5e is. No way to know. The editions since 3.5 seem to be performing based on marketing and trends, not content.

As per the article and my own experience? Not so much. If you only picked up the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB? I could definitely see that. But in the context of the post-3.5 PHB publishing cycle? You could definitely see the trend towards 4e, and there was already a call for portions of the design philosophy of 4e. And though Pathfinder fans would loathe to admit it, such voices were still prominent in their own community, because PF1 did not somehow magically erase the core weaknesses of 3e.

This is again one reason why I find a lot of the "recent" d20 D&D-derived systems fascinating -- e.g., 13th Age, Pathfinder 2, 5e D&D, Shadow of the Demon Lord, etc.* -- because many now seem to exist within a continuum between 3e and 4e. You can see design elements of both and many have designers from one or both systems, though these elements from 4e tend to be more muted or subtle.

* Though not properly the d20 system, Numenera/Cypher System arguably belongs in this category as well, especially given the role of designer Monte Cook and a few other D&D 3e era names at MCG: Bruce Cordell, Sean K Reynolds, etc.

 

[Raith5]

I doubt it. The vast majority who passed/bailed on 4e did so because it mechanically just wasn't a version of the game they wanted to play.
What WoTCs customers wanted was to spend $ on an improved 3x. Or in some cases an improved AD&D. What we GOT was a 3/4 baked board game designed to be played on a computer that was niether.

The other thing that struck me about early 4e was how poor some of the early adventures were. It just seemed that even the designers didnt seem to know how the game was meant to work.

But I really appreciate 4e as a game. We played as a proper roleplaying game and it worked as well as previous editions or 5th - we didnt get so hooked that we "dwelled on the grid" as the article noted. It was a complicated game but I liked giving everyone powers and it changed my expectations of what I want to see in martial characters and monsters in particular.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

Legitimate criticism of a game is fine. But I'm seeing things that look more like caged vitriol. So, here's the one warning the thread will get: Keep that up, and the discussion will end very quickly. Mudslinging is not critique, and patience for ugliness of the past will be in short supply now.

If you like 3.Xe, got play it (or Pathfinder). If you like 4e, go play it. If you like 5e, play it. But stop beating dead horses. Keep it to cool analysis. Keep the emotionally charged language and colorful hyperbole out of this thread.

I hope that's clear.

 

[Ted Serious]

As per the article and my own experience? Not so much. If you only picked up the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB? I could definitely see that. But in the context of the post-3.5 PHB publishing cycle? You could definitely see the trend towards 4e, and there was already a call for portions of the design philosophy of 4e. And though Pathfinder fans would loathe to admit it, such voices were still prominent in their own community, because PF1 did not somehow magically erase the core weaknesses of 3e.

This is again one reason why I find a lot of the "recent" d20 D&D-derived systems fascinating -- e.g., 13th Age, Pathfinder 2, 5e D&D, Shadow of the Demon Lord, etc.* -- because many now seem to exist within a continuum between 3e and 4e. You can see design elements of both and many have designers from one or both systems, though these elements from 4e tend to be more muted or subtle.

* Though not properly the d20 system, Numenera/Cypher System arguably belongs in this category as well, especially given the role of designer Monte Cook and a few other D&D 3e era names at MCG: Bruce Cordell, Sean K Reynolds, etc.

You're saying 4e was far ahead of its time.

I'm saying it was an aberration.

If some future edition is just like 4e, we'll know you're right.

 

[Ted Serious]

Now trends and marketing counts for a lot yes... but is may just be possible that people who play 5e *genuinely* like it you know...

If they had started with Pathfinder or Dundeon World or even 1e reprints under exactly the same circumstances they could feel exactly the same way.

 

[Charlaquin]

You're saying 4e was far ahead of its time.

I'm saying it was an aberration.

If some future edition is just like 4e, we'll know you're right.

Have you seen the PF2 previews?

 

[Jester David]

The other thing that struck me about early 4e was how poor some of the early adventures were. It just seemed that even the designers didnt seem to know how the game was meant to work.

I blame the "delve format" for that. Even the late 3e adventures that used that were pretty terrible.

It makes sense on paper—include all the statblocks and everything needed to run the encounter—but giving each encounter area 1-4 pages was awkward. Small roleplaying rooms only needed half or a quarter of a page, so were horribly padded or you were discouraged from including them. And having all the statblocks included for combat encounters meant interesting features or descriptions were omitted.

That said, Keep on the Shadowfell was weak and problematic, being written as the rules were being finalised. (Tyranny of Dragons is weak for the same reasons.) And there's some terrible encounter math in sections. Thunderspire Labyrinth was weak because it was a Rich Baker adventure. Sure he's a decent dude and his mechanics are solid, but his adventures tend to be terrible: weak hooks with moving goalposts, no puzzles, and boring dungeons.